Harrow Council (202001658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001658

Harrow Council

26 March 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since 12 November 2007. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a three-storey block.
On 30 January 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that there was a leak under her boiler. An emergency callout was arranged and contractors attended approximately an hour and a half later. They repaired the leak on the line de-scaler and stopcock to the boiler but noted that there was another leak on the domestic hot water outlet from the boiler. It noted that the visible pipework was corroded, the kitchen units were water damaged and warped and that these would need to be removed before work could be completed. The notes also state that the resident refused the “make safe” procedure and that all the pipework under the boiler unit would need to be redone.
The following day, 31 January 2020, contractors again attended the property where the resident pointed out that tiles had come off the wall and damage had been caused to the flooring underneath the tiling. Some of the kitchen units were removed and the leak was repaired by installing new pipes. A surveyor referral was arranged for an assessment of the damage to the units and to establish what further work was required.
On 3 February 2020 an order was raised for contractors to fix a new leak. On 5 February 2020 the landlord’s surveyor attended to survey the damage, and raised an order to renew the worktop, base unit, kickboards and windowsill tiling. The resident stated to the surveyor at the visit that she was seeking a whole new kitchen replacement. However the surveyor stated to her that was not warranted. The resident signed a disclaimer agreeing that the contractors would move various items including the washing machine and that they would not be liable for any damage caused.
On 7 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that she was still waiting for a resolution to the kitchen leak. She had not heard the outcome of the surveyor’s visit and wanted to know when the kitchen would be in a usable condition again. On the same day the landlord raised an order to renew the water-damaged worktops and renew the kitchen base unit, noting that this work should be completed within seven days. An order was also raised to renew the poly-safe flooring in the kitchen.
On 11 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that the repairs remained outstanding. She stated that most of her kitchen units had become soaked in water and were now unsafe to use. Various contractors had attended the property but had not resolved the issue with the leak. She noted that she had taken ten days off work to be available for appointments. The landlord replied the next day, 12 February 2020, noting it would respond directly to her concerns and investigate.
On 13 February 2020 the contractors attended the property to assess any outstanding repairs. On 19 February 2020 the kitchen flooring was renewed with the surveyor attending to supervise.
On 24 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the ongoing repairs to the kitchen, setting out the issues that remained outstanding.
1. It had been agreed on 19 February 2020 when the surveyor and contractors were at the property that the latter would complete the kitchen unit repairs and tiling on 28 February 2020 during a morning appointment.
2. The nature of the flooring work and timing would be decided with the surveyor once the former job was completed. It noted the landlord would only install vinyl sheet flooring.
3. It understood that all leaks had been finalised unless the resident was to advise it otherwise.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident referencing a conversation they had the previous day. It confirmed the following:
1. The contractors would be attending again that afternoon to repair the leak in the kitchen.
2. They would attend again on 28 February 2020 to repair the kitchen units and the windowsill. The landlord had spoken to the contractors regarding the tiling, and the latter was going to call the resident to arrange an alternative as it was highly likely it would not be able to match the existing units.
3. The flooring sub-contractors would be able to lay the vinyl sheet flooring and would agree on a suitable appointment time with the resident.
4. The landlord would contact the resident on 28 February 2020 to ensure that each of the issues had been satisfactorily resolved.
On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she would expect the landlord to replace the fridge if it was damaged by the contractors during the work. She also stated that she would not accept any other tiles than replacements in the same colours as the originals.
On 5 March 2020 contractors attended the property to attend to the flooring work. The resident signed a disclaimer noting that the contractor would not accept any responsibility for loss, damage or disruption that may be caused in the process of it moving her fridge and washing machine prior to the contractor work.
That evening, the resident emailed the landlord and set out the following:
1. The contractors who had attended that day to undertake the flooring work had vigorously moved the washing machine damaging the pipe and causing it to leak. She requested that a plumber attend immediately that it had been fixed properly and the pipes had been replaced correctly.
2. When the workers had asked her to sign the disclaimer, she had noted on the document that the fridge had “a little damage” prior to the work being done. She had refused to sign a “blank lines paper” and written that the contractor had “done screeding” and laid the look-alike vinyl.
3. The contractor’s timekeeping was very poor, with appointments being made for 1pm to 5 or 6pm requiring residents to be home for the entire period, though the contractors would regularly not arrive until just before the end of the timeslot.
On 6 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that it urgently arrange to resolve the leak that had occurred as a result of the washing machine being connected. She also noted that contractors had been booked to “finish off” the base skirting board for the kitchen that day, but that she had only been advised of this at very late notice. She stated that the surveyor’s communication with her had been poor. She requested a plumber attend the property to resolve the leak, stating that they may need to replace the connector between the washing machine and the pipe under the sink. She noted that she would not allow the particular surveyor into the property as she was dissatisfied with the work they had undertaken so far.
On the same day, 6 March 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident before following this conversation up with an email to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. Contractors would attend to the leak, and it would request they attend at 4pm that day at which time the resident was available. Staff would attend 15 minutes in advance and wait for the resident. It would request that the contractors bring the hose and connections for the washing machine. It noted the resident’s report that the contractors had been aggressive when attending to the washing machine which caused damage to the connections and subsequently the leak. It stated it would rectify this and apologised.
2. It had been agreed that a surveyor would attend that afternoon as well as the contractors, but the resident had cancelled this appointment due to work commitments. It was unable to allocate an alternative surveyor given it worked in small teams and resources were not available to do this. It had asked the surveyor to attend, meet with the resident and photograph any remaining issues following the work carried out by the contractors.
3. The flooring was standard poly-safe sheet flooring that the landlord fits and no further action could be taken regarding its texture.
4. The internal grey colour was something that could not be resolved as this was how the drawer was manufactured. It was unable to match the new grey tile to the existing tiles due to the effects of discolouration by sunlight over time and no further action could be taken regarding this. It noted it would complete any sealant work/plinth works and this appointment would need to be rearranged as the resident had stated she was not available that day.
5. It would respond to the complaint about the fridge being scratched, and it requested the resident raise any other matters she wished to have addressed with the surveyor.
The leak was resolved that afternoon. On the same day the resident raised a complaint that the landlord’s contractors had scratched her fridge. The surveyor stated in an email to the landlord that based on his examination of the fridge that day, the fridge had “a few scratches over it”. The surveyor also stated that it inspected the floor that day confirming that the flooring was laid correctly. The washing machine had been removed, the flooring was flat and stuck to the floor and there was nothing wrong with the flooring which was also witnessed and confirmed by the plumber. They stated their opinion that the tenant had interfered with the flooring.
On 9 March 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident had complained about the contractors allegedly scratching the fridge.
On 11 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the delay in providing its stage one complaint response, noting it would send this to her by 16 March 2020 at the latest. It also indicated that it would be offering her £150 as compensation for the complaint. It also noted it would arrange for its contractors to attend the property to check the washing machine hose connections to trace a separate leak. On the same day the landlord raised an order for its contractors to undertake this work with an appointment arranged for 12 March 2020 which went ahead to fix the leak.
On 16 March 2020 the resident confirmed that the flooring work had been completed, and she had contacted the contractors to arrange for them to finish off the kitchen by fixing the plinths.
On 19 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that the repair work had taken a number of weeks but noted that the repair works had largely been completed. It stated that there had been some delays in progressing the repairs related to managing the resident’s expectations and agreeing suitable times for the appointments. It nevertheless apologised to her for the delay and the inconvenience this had caused her and offered her £150 for her time and trouble.
On 25 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated on the following grounds:
1. The work should have taken 2 weeks but instead took approximately 8.
2. The surveyor attended with the contractors at multiple appointments which she considered unnecessary.
3. She had to take multiple days off work, and there was poor communication from the contractors and landlord.
4. She was unhappy with the replacement flooring which she considered to be low quality and visually poor, as well as the way the contractors had handled the shifting of her appliances.
The landlord’s internal records following this email noted that:
1. The resident did not like the safety flooring which had been installed, though this was standard issue for kitchens and bathrooms.
2. The contractor denied causing any damage to the fridge and the washing machine, and the resident had signed a disclaimer covering these items.
3. The landlord’s policy was to offer slots for repairs: it was unable to give specific times unless a resident requested a first call (between 8 and 10am).
4. The resident was never prevented from using her kitchen by the repair work.
5. The resident had not wanted new flooring, but the work was done to replace it with safety flooring which was standard for kitchens and bathrooms.
6. The kitchen units could not be replaced exactly as they were a few years old, although the landlord had endeavoured to get the closest match possible. Since the installation of the original kitchen, the drawer specifications had been changed by the manufacturer and there were no similar types existing to the original ones. It had purchased the closest match possible given the old drawers could not be fitted back and as requested by the surveyor, who stated that it should not change/replace the whole kitchen. The difference in colour was only on the inside of the drawers.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response:
1. Contractors had attended on 30 January 2020 to repair the line de-scaler and stopcock to the boiler and had discovered another leak. This was carried out the following day with the installation of new pipes, when it was observed that there was water damage to the units, kickboard and windowsill. A surveyor’s appointment was arranged for 5 February 2020, at which time orders were raised to renew the worktop, base unit, kickboards and window-sill tiling. The arranging of appointments and gaining access to carry out remedial works had not always been straightforward due to the nature of the work required. The surveyor had stated that her request for a whole new kitchen replacement was unwarranted.
2. The plinth repairs were delayed due to the Covid-19 crisis, and the resident had been made aware of this in March 2020 by the landlord who had informed her that suppliers were closed and the contractor was self-isolating. During lockdown it was only able to undertake emergency repairs, and the work on her property would be carried out once restrictions on staff and suppliers were relaxed.
3. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had taken time off from work on multiple occasions to be available for contractors to attend the property. It stated its contractors provided slots for attendance and are unable to accommodate specific times requested. It acknowledged this had caused inconvenience to her and contributed in part to the work taking longer than anticipated. It apologised that it had caused frustration but noted that both parties had tried to accommodate each other where possible.
4. The surveyor’s attendance at the contractor’s appointment had been arranged prior to this and notice provided to the resident. Their presence was necessary to ensure work was carried out as appropriate and to ensure any issues were resolved promptly. This was normal practice.
5. The resident had full access to the kitchen during the period in question, given no services were disconnected, the kitchen sink was fully operational and the cooker was located on the opposite side.
6. The new flooring laid was a poly-safe flooring type and the only type on offer. The resident had been given the chance to choose the colour. The surveyor had confirmed the flooring was laid properly. When the washing machine was pulled, it caused the fixing to partially leak and the resident had reported this for it to be repaired. It stated that unfortunately washing machines were heavy and needed a manner of strength to move them. It referred her to the disclaimer she signed on 5 March 2020.
7. In response to the resident’s complaint that her fridge was damaged, the landlord again referred her to the disclaimer.
8. The changes to the resident’s kitchen were purely cosmetic, as the manufacturers had changed the specifications to the units. The old drawers were shorter and were now grey, though this could only be seen when the drawers were open. The resident’s request that the kitchen be replaced as a result of the cosmetic changes was not warranted.
9. It concluded that all reasonable steps were taken to manage the leak which had occurred due to wear and tear. However it acknowledged that the remedial repairs did take longer than expected due to multiple tradespeople being involved and the staff trying to resolve elements which the resident expected the landlord to fix when it could not. It was unable to reimburse the resident for time off work, but due to the delay in coordinating the repairs and the resident’s inconvenience it had increased the compensation to £250.
On 26 June 2020 the landlord noted that there were remaining plinths to fit, though stated that it believed the resident had stated she was going to undertake this work herself. On 7 July 2020 it was noted that the work had been put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The work was completed on 18 August 2020.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following:
1. Emergency repairs include a leaking/burst pipe or flooding. Non-urgent repairs include repairs to floors, kitchen units and fittings, plasterwork and minor plumbing faults.
2. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 4 hours and non-urgent repairs within 1-20 working days.
3. Repairs to white goods are the responsibility of the resident.
4. A resident must give access to their property to allow the landlord to carry out repairs.

Assessment and findings

The resident has stated that the leak had been ongoing for a year, however the Ombudsman considers the repair from the date it was first reported to the landlord as this is the time from which the latter can reasonably be expected to respond. The landlord attended promptly as an emergency call out, in line with its repair policy timeframe of four hours after the initial report from the resident on 30 January 2020. It assessed the issue and carried out the work to the extent it was able at that visit which resolved the emergency repair problem. When it became clear that other work was necessary, it arranged for contractors to attend the following day to undertake a more comprehensive fix by repairing the pipework.
Following the initial emergency repair the landlord raised an order for its contractors to renew the water-damaged worktops and renew the kitchen base unit on 7 February 2020, with the notes stating this job should be completed within seven days. The work was recorded as completed on 5 March 2020. The substantive works to the kitchen took approximately six and a half weeks to be finalised which is evidenced by the resident’s email of 16 March 2020 that stated the flooring was finalised. This meant the work went beyond the planned timeframe in the repair notes. Importantly, it also exceeded the timescale requirement for non-urgent repairs as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy by approximately two and a half weeks.
The evidence indicates that more minor leaks subsequently occurred during this period. One was a result of the contractor’s moving of the washing machine on 5 March 2020 which was resolved within 24 hours. Another came from the boiler which was outstanding for a number of weeks, though there was confusion as to whether the issue had been resolved or not in the communication between the parties. The evidence indicates that this went beyond its set timescale for repairs to a leak given the resident repeatedly reported the issue and sought updates on this during February 2020.
There has been some conflicting evidence as to why the work was delayed. The landlord has stated that part of the reason was unreasonable expectations by the resident which it had not effectively managed as well as problems with agreeing times for the appointments. In contrast, the resident has stated that she took multiple days off work to be available for the timeslots booked by the landlord’s contractors to attend the property, and therefore did not contribute to the delays in this manner. The resident has supported this position with evidence that she continued to seek telephone and email updates from the landlord which also noted that she could be available whenever necessary for the appointments.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the quality of some of the repairs made by the landlord, including the surface type of the replaced kitchen units, the colour of the inside of the drawers and the type of flooring. The landlord however has relied on the opinion of its surveyor, which set out their expert opinion on the necessary repairs and was satisfied that a replacement of the entire kitchen was unnecessary. The landlord was entitled to carry out the repairs in line with this opinion considering it restored the functionality of the kitchen and resolved any safety issues. It found matches for the kitchen unit surface and drawer replacements as close as possible to the originals which were no longer being manufactured, which was a reasonable approach to take.
It also justified the quality and type of flooring and tiling that it put in place, which was standard for repairs to kitchens and bathrooms in its properties and considering some of the tiling had faded over time and replacements were not available. It appropriately communicated each of these points to the resident before the work was carried out, and ensured the kitchen remained usable during the period of the works being undertaken.
Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident considering the total length of time the works were outstanding. The offer of £250 was an appropriate step to take in the circumstances given the delays and the distress these caused to the resident. Such an offer recognised its failure to adhere to the service timeframes set out in its repairs policy and the lack of clarity around the progress of the work. It also sought to provide a resolution to the complaint given the resident had made it clear that she did not agree with some its choices regarding the types of repairs made even though it had justified these decisions, and the fact that the landlord’s contractors had directly caused another leak when moving the washing machine.
Following the completion of the substantive works being the installation of the kitchen units, the replacement of the plinths was understandably delayed by the implementation of the Covid-19 lockdown which prevented the landlord and its contractors from carrying out the work. Once lockdown restrictions began to ease, the landlord acted promptly to arrange this work and it was carried out on 18 August 2020, which was within a reasonable timeframe considering the priority of the job and the circumstances of contractors commencing work again.
The landlord has relied on the terms of the disclaimer signed by the resident to justify the position that it is not responsible for any alleged damage to the resident’s fridge and washing machine. This was appropriate given the resident was made aware of the nature of the work and the disclaimer, the conditions under which the work was agreed to be carried out and the previous condition of the fridge which was noted prior to it being moved. It was also appropriate that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property during various contractor’s appointments given this allowed it to monitor the progress of the repairs and establish what remained to be done. Though the resident was dissatisfied with the way the repairs were managed by the surveyor, there is no evidence to indicate that the staff acted inappropriately in the carrying out their responsibilities.
The Ombudsman would usually not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works inevitably caused some inconvenience to the resident, the repairs policy required her to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. The landlord’s offer of £250 was sufficient in the circumstances to compensate the resident for her time and trouble, given the delays and inconvenience she experienced.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Reasons

The landlord has largely acted appropriately in responding to the repair works as appropriate and arranging for its surveyor and contractors to attend to the repairs. While the resident has been unhappy with the approach taken by the landlord regarding the presence of the surveyor at appointments and the type of flooring, drawers and kitchen units put in place as part of the repairs, the landlord has acted reasonably in following its repairs policy in carrying out repairs in a reasonable fashion. It has recognised the delays that occurred in the carrying out of the work and offered reasonable compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this caused to her.

Orders and recommendations

I make the following recommendation:
1. That the landlord pay to the resident its compensation offer of £250 within the next four weeks.
The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the above payment being made. Confirmation of this payment being made should be communicated to the Ombudsman within four weeks.